Some months ago, the Civic Education Working Group launched a competition for essays with the title: “What does the ideal political system look like?”.  Participants had to submit an essay over their ideal political system and then organise an activity within their local. The working group chose one winner, how had the possibility to win an Interrail ticket, but the ECWG chose also two honorable mentions: What if YOUth could shape Europe? by Antonis Triantafyllakis (AEGEE-Cluj-Napoca) and The Ideal puzzle – can we put back together our pieces? by Roberto Meneghetti (AEGEE-Torino). 

The Ideal puzzle – can we put back together our pieces?

Author: Roberto Meneghetti, AEGEE-Torino. 

Since the dawn of Mankind, the problem of establishing an ideal form of government has been debated. Nowadays, with a diffuse Crisis, both economic and ideological, of our system, the question seems more relevant than ever. However, are we sure that “ideal” means good in practice? And is there an “ideal” form of government that can be found out throughout these days? To answer these questions, or at least, give it a try, it is useful to have a pretty quick (and simplified) trip through some previous attempts that have been tried in the history of Europe in order to attain an ideal state of government.

We will see that any time has produced its own “ideal governments” depending on different values and ideas of society.

I. Monarchism (…-1700s)

One of the most ancient form of government in a large and organized society is Monarchy, where the rule is centered into the hands of one. There are many kinds of Monarchies with different kinds of relationship with the whole society. Here we are concentrating on the feudal/absolute monarchies, ruling out any democratic environment, but all of them share a legitimacy coming from dynastic and divine rights. Beside the divine justifications, we find justifications for this kind of government as the one system to solve all the problems.

Even Machiavelli (1) in the XVI century, who favours ultimately a republican model (especially during his late years), recurs to the necessity of a sovereign because it acts and adapts faster to the rapid changes of the times. Hobbes (2), one century later, says a King is necessary to ensure order and stability in an otherwise chaotic society. Machiavelli was living during the late Renaissance, in which Italy was scrambled by wars and internal conflicts and Hobbes was writing right in the aftermaths of the English Civil War.

In their societies in which instability, strict social divisions, war, slavery, colonialism were considered the norm, this kind of reasoning as well appeared more acceptable and became an ideal through which manage a troublesome situation.

II. Liberalism (1600-1700)

During these centuries, various upheavals change the shape of the European society: a larger and larger share of the population attains an higher living standard, becoming a new social class: it is the so-called “bourgeoise”. With a new society come along new values: the new ideals are of individual self-realization, personal rights and property protection, which are the issues that the rising new class is facing in the hostile Monarchic environment.

Locke (3) theorizes that the humans possesses some innate rights, such the one to life, to freedom, to health, to property, the so-called natural rights. We are in the XVII century, where England is a forerunner in granting new rights to this uprising social class as a rising constitutional monarchy.

In the XVIII century, during the Enlightenment, the liberal thought takes full form: Kant (4, 5) introduces the concepts of universal laws, respecting the natural rights: the ideal man, and therefore the State is the one respecting those terms. Montesquieu (6) formalizes the concept of division of the three powers, necessary for a democratic environment. It is a period of prosperity for Germany, under the “King Philosopher” Frederick II and France was still enjoying the fruits of the colonial dominance under Louis XIV, but after his rule the general wealth was crippled by war debts and this will lead to explosive consequences: all these values are incorporated into the French revolution which will be the ultimate demand of individual rights against the monarchy. Sadly this surge of freedom rapidly degenerates into a regime of Terror, culminating with the rise of the Napoleonic Empire.

III. Authoritarianism (1815-1950)

After the French Revolution, the shape of Europe has changed and monarchies have lost their “appeal”: Napoleon crushed the whole continent, and the traces of the revolutionary thinking have remained. These previous upheavials have made many thinkers change their mind about the role of the State, going far beyond divine legitimacy or simple utilitaristic thinking. During the Romantic age, Hegel (7) among the others theorises a new role of the State: the monarch become the actor w history and defends the national identity. This reflects a period of reactionary restauration in which exstensive national/colonial empire arise. The concept of People and will be re-elaborated by Marx (8): the people is not a Nation, but a Class, the working class. The ideals of liberalism (during this period we find this word for the first time) continue to co-exist in contrast with the previous views and in the mean time and the democratic processes become achieved by the end of the 1800s, with the Industrial Revolution bringing fundamental technological breakthrough. It is a period of hope and this is reflected in the wave of Positivism, the belief that technology can and will save mankind. The theories of Darwin, thought for the animal kingdom, start to be applied to human society: the ideal becomes a system where the strongest survive and evolve, the weakest deserve to be excluded from the path of history. Thinkers like Spencer (9) include these ideals even in the framework of Liberalism.

However the faith in technology will have a sad epilogue: the Great War: after this tragic event, technology shows all its deadly potential at the service of an, up to that point, ideal mankind. But the 1929 breaks also the ideal of liberalism: freedom of individual has brought to a major economic crisis. Liberalism doesn’t pass the test.

We are again in a moment of confusion, upheavial, but now without strong monarchies, which have been mostly dissolved after the Great War. In this period new ideas arise: totalitarisms set their foot in the political scene, bringing the promise of a completely revolutionized society which, at the eyes of the, seem the ideal response to the weak and struggling liberal regimes. Nazifascist and Soviet dictatorships bring with themselves the ideas of Positivism in a new form: their ideal societies see a totally new kind of man, accurately crafted by the State, with precise requirements and qualities. This positivism yields its most nefarious product in the form of the concentration camps, where the scientific method and the ethics of maximum efficiency are put at the service of one of the darkest pages in the European history

IV. Social-democracy & Free-Market (1930-2000)

The crisis of the 1929 even though coming from the US, has struck heavily Europe. The liberal system, as we have seen, came into crisis. In those places where dictatorship didn’t become the new ideal, we witness anyway a shift in the ideal form of Government toward a more controlled one. The need of control emerges in a new way, which tries to get a compromise between the necessity of controlling an otherwise unstable system and on the other hand the protection of human rights and liberties. Keynes’ (10) theories about Welfare State and intervention in the economy are fundamental in this shift, that will change the ideal of State. After the Second World War, Europe is looking for peace and a new time of prosperity. The ideas of Keynes will be influential throughout this period of reconstruction and regrowth. In the ideal vision the State must no more simply grant the liberty of the individual. The ideal State is the so-called Welfare State, which grants to the individuals the right to realize their individual ambitions, by granting proper education and services and a suitable environment. This is a new concept of equality called “Equality of Autonomy”, as theorized by Sen(11).

In the meantime, there are many oppositions to this kind of reasoning: Friedmann (12) is one of the most prominent economist which supports a laisser-faire economy: one where the intervention of the State is minimal and finalized to the security issues. Reaganism and Thatcherism follow this path and lead to a gradual return to a non-interventionist view of the State.

Both this right and left-wing visions share the ideal of democratic representation as we know it and live into this framework. In this period of general prosperity, Fukuyama (13) prophetizes “the end of history” as conflict, with democracy as the permanent winner.

V. Ochlocracy v. Epistemocracy (2000-…)

In the recent times, also the form of democracy we have just outlined comes into crisis: socialdemocratic systems incur into debt crisis and free-market policies put the basis for the unregulated framework which will burst into the financial crisis of 2008. Both systems lost their credibility for their harsh consequences, leading to serious concerns about the democratic system as we know it. The consequence of this failures comes into the form a feeling of underrepresentation.

This feeling has originated movements bringing forward a new idea of democracy, exploiting the higher communicability given by the new recent technology: the direct democracy, which unlike the representative democracy which relies on elected representatives, gives to the common citizen a direct influence and decisional power into politics. Referenda and online voting/discussions have seen a great rise in recent times’ debates. European parties like Syriza, Podemos, Five Star Movement, the Pirate Party, advocated for the introduction of an edemocracy, based entirely on an online participation. Ultimately this need of “representing the voice of the people” has given birth to various movements, labled “populists” and a period in which referenda have been advocated as the ultimate resolutive tool, leading to events such as the Brexit and the Italian Governmental crisis of 2016.

One big critique to this ideal participated system is that giving so much decisional power into the hands of inexperienced individuals may lead to disastrous consequences, or as the ancient would call it with derogatory spirit, an “ochlocracy”: the government by the crowd. In this vision we insert the opposing school of thought, which as well criticizes the participation system of democracy, but at the opposite: it is too much. Thinkers like Taleb (14) and Brennan (15) have put forward a system in which only the competent people have the right to participate into the electoral process, it’s the so-called “epistemocracy”: the government by the culture. There are flaws in this thinking, too: beside the renouncement of the basic democratic values, it’s indeed really difficult to determine which is – and how to measure it – the optimal level of knowledge necessary to make a good voting decision.

One thing is for sure: the democratic system is facing once again a big upheaval and this will probably change it radically.

VI. Conclusion

We have seen many different systems, with many different ideals, which have significantly shaped our vision today. Many systems looked like reasonable because of the values of their time: slavery, colonialism, segregation, discrimination, the very use of violence were considered normal. The fear for the future made people change their mindset and their priorities. Nowadays the challenges are new and at the same time no different: in our period of crisis we must be really attentive to what our ideals are, as violence and intolerance are sadly returning to be tolerated and apologized, a process accelerated by the recent migrational crisis.

Ideal is then not a synonymous for good. At least, not necessarily. Therefore we have to think more than twice before stating that our system in our minds is the one which will solve all our problems. Democracy as we know it has many flaws, but has also granted us one of the longest periods of peace and prosperity in our history.

Do we really need to change it? Probably yes. But, do we really want to change it in a way that will run over our individual rights?

References:

1. Machiavelli, N 1532, Il Principe, Feltrinelli Editore, Milan

2. Hobbes, T 1651, the Leviathan, BUR Edizioni, Milan

3. Locke, J 1690, Second Treatise of Government, UTET, Turin

4. Kant, I 1788, Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Feltrinelli Editore, Milan

5. Kant, I 1795, Zum ewigen Frieden, Feltrinelli Editore, Milan

6. Montesquieu, C 1748, De l’esprit des lois, BUR Edizioni, Milan

7. Hegel, GWF 1817, Enzyclopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse, IBS, Bari

8. Marx, K 1867, Das Kapital, Newton Compton, Roma

9. Spencer, H 1862, First Principles, Bocca Edizioni, Milan

10. Keynes, JM 1936, The general theory of employment, interest and money,

11. Sen, A 2009, The Idea of Justice, Mondadori, Milano

12. Friedmann, M 1962, Capitalism and Justice, IBL Libri, Milano

13. Fukuyama, F 1992, The end of History, BUR Edizioni, Milan

14. Taleb, NN 2007, Epistemocracy, a Dream. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House

15. Brennan, J 2006, Against Democracy, Princeton University Press

Some months ago, the Civic Education Working Group launched a competition for essays with the title: “What does the ideal political system look like?”.  Participants had to submit an essay over their ideal political system and then organise an activity within their local. The working group chose one winner, how had the possibility to win an Interrail ticket, but the ECWG chose also two honorable mentions: What if YOUth could shape Europe? by Antonis Triantafyllakis (AEGEE-Cluj-Napoca) and The Ideal puzzle – can we put back together our pieces? by Roberto Meneghetti (AEGEE-Torino). 

What if YOUth could shape Europe?

Author:  Antonis Triantafyllakis, Politics Interest Group

How would the ideal political system for Europe look like? In an attempt to discover what young people think about it, we held two events, one in Paris, France, and one in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, organised by AEGEE-Paris and AEGEE-Cluj-Napoca respectively. 24 students participated in total, in a structured discussion over coffee. We asked our participants the questions below and analysed the results. We deliberately the definition of “Europe” open to interpretation, to get more diverse outcomes. We called this the “Europe Cafe”.

Is Europe democratic?

70% of the participants consider Europe democratic, because there is rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of mobility, legal protection of human rights, and every country in Europe uses the electoral process. However, a lot of concerns were shared about corruption, the lack of citizens’ involvement in the decision making processes, the influence of big corporations and the media, and the fear of the most powerful states dictating policies.

How can we improve democracy in Europe?

When it comes to the main ideas behind improving democracy in Europe, our participants focused a lot on transparency, civic education, informing more people on the values, pros and cons of democracy, involving young people more, stricter laws against corruption in politics, bringing the EU institutions closer to the citizens, increasing mobility and freedom of speech, increasing the social cohesion of the citizens, implementing an unconditional basic income scheme, letting more countries join Schengen, enabling everyone to have an equal say and use more interactive and online tools for participation.

Is democracy an ideal political system?

Most participants agreed that there can be no ideal political system per se, but democracy seems to be the best that we can currently have, despite its flaws. It can only work if everyone’s voice is equally heard and their rights protected. Concerns were shared about how power can corrupt those holding it and how that can severely affect the functioning of democracy.

What values should the ideal political system for Europe be based on?

After the introductory questions above, we started the structured discussion with this question. The values mostly mentioned were equality (with a special focus on wealth equality), transparency, freedom, justice, human rights, education, equity. Several participants also focused on the importance of environmental sustainability.

How can those values be respected in a political system for Europe? What core rules should be there to maintain them?

When it comes to upholding those values in practice, our participants focused a lot on individual responsibility and the importance of education, starting already from elementary level; “how can I understand if my rights are respected if I don’t know what my rights are?” one said. Several opinions were heard regarding the rule of law and the importance of equality and transparency. One suggested that changing laws shouldn’t be decided by a majority, but by having a quorum made of a representative of each country so voting cannot be influenced in a major way. In a similar mindset, a constitution written by the citizens was mentioned, suggesting also that a “real” european constitution should be voted, written and recognized by every european country and that referenda should be run before every big decision that would impact the European nations is taken. Another interesting suggestion regarding law was that laws should be developed in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, and countries with a lower HDI index should be supported by the rest, where they lack infrastructure/consumption credit. Scrutiny of the ECB and the suggestion of a federal Europe were also mentioned. Finally, the participants also focused on the importance of human rights, promoting empathy and the need to develop a stronger social policy in Europe, in order to maintain democracy and improve citizen participation.

What types of structures would ensure the values above are respected?

Most participants mentioned having an elected government, a court of technocrats and elected assemblies, as bodies differentiated from each other. Having local groups was also deemed very important, as they can better adapt to the local realities and it was suggested that a lot of the decision making power should be delegated to local groups. Many participants considered schools and NGOs an important part of the process, due to their role in educating and giving voice to the citizens.

What would be the core aim of each structure and its basic life-line?

Ensuring fairness, efficiency and the rule of law, while creating the best conditions for people to live, seemed to be the overall idea behind the role of the structures mentioned. Having short life-lines and frequent elections of these structures was deemed important to ensure adequate representation, while sortition was also suggested for assemblies. When it comes to local groups, they should comprise of citizens in contact with citizens, discussing often on relevant topics and reporting the conclusions to assemblies, also ensuring the different points of view are communicated to any national structures. The aim should be to understand local realities, and have appropriate national responses. International institutions should collaborate with the national structures and take into account the local realities, in order to form common and inclusive policies.

What tools can you use to make sure these structures function and are representing all citizens in Europe adequately and equally?

The participants recognised the critical role digital tools can play in a broader representation of the citizens’ voice, from online surveys and referenda to online voting, to citizens having safe spaces to express their opinions, develop ideas and come up with solutions and from running monthly checks-up to an annual survey on the efficiency of the services provided. Furthermore, digital tools can encourage an increased participation of youth in politics and even identifying potential leaders among them. Apart from digital tools, participatory budgeting and the Swiss-type of referenda were mentioned to be worth considering. In general, the main focus of using tools when it comes to democracy was to achieve higher participation and involvement of the citizens in the decision making processes.

What are the main obstacles for implementing such a system in the current reality?

Education, or rather the lack thereof, especially when it comes to civic education, in order for citizens to make informed political choices, understand how the political structures function and be motivated to take an active role in politics was a common barrier mentioned by the participants. Corruption, injustice, careerist politicians, lobbies and the influence of the media were also heavily mentioned. Social, political and economical barriers between the different countries of Europe were identified, causing the countries to hold different interests and aims, and have nationalistic tendencies. The need to have a sense of belonging was mentioned as present in overcoming those obstacles.

What ideas could possibly get us there?

Once again, there was a heavy focus on education, starting from a very young age. The aim of education in that respect should be to shape citizens that are aware of the laws that affect their lives, are well informed and inspired to take action, starting from individual responsibility, and are capable of being kind and just to one another. The participants were concerned about the role of populism and climate change denial in politics, as well as leniency towards corrupt politicians and suggested more decisive actions against them. Encouraging more young people to be active in politics and even run on campaigns was also mentioned, as well as suggesting the Erasmus programme and be extended.

What can youth organisations, such as AEGEE, do to get us there?

The role youth organisations such as AEGEE can play was found to be significant, mainly focusing on civic education. Youth organisations can lead the process of educating young people about Europe and its political structures, informing them about current political affairs, enabling and encouraging youth participation, and improving critical thinking. They can play a crucial role in bridging the gap between the political institutions and the citizens, be the voice of young people and advocate for their ideas to be implemented. Finally, they can inspire more young people to join the existing political structures and institutions and bring change.

What can you as an individual do to get us there?

The participants mentioned their intentions to stay informed, take action in their local communities as well as their youth organisations, to be more involved and engaged in politics, to fight injustice, to vote, speak up, and be ready to interact with each other.

Overall conclusions from the Europe Cafe

Even though the weather didn’t help to have high participation and we had to compensate with a short online survey to get more results from the members of the two AEGEE locals, there are two key points that were consistently recurring in the answers of different questions:

Education: Education is identified as a major factor towards an “ideal” political system for Europe. The participants mentioned on several parts the importance of education as key in having informed citizens that are ready, willing and motivated to take an active role in politics. Education on how the political structures work, as well as how they can take action. Furthermore, education should include civic education and the developing of critical thinking skills among the citizens, in order for their actions to have outcomes and it should be both educational institutes and youth organisations carrying out that educational process.

Participation: The increased participation of citizens in the “ideal” political system for Europe was mentioned at several different points as absolutely necessary. The participants suggested several different ways to achieve this, from the delegation of political responsibilities to local groups closer to and more easily accessible by the citizens, to the youth organisations playing an important role in bringing Europe closer to the citizens and ensuring advocacy for their ideas, to more frequent votings and referenda, to utilising digital tools for reaching more citizens in elections, surveys, online referenda and brainstorming for ideas and solutions and finally, and perhaps more importantly, to have more young people participating in politics and policy making, and even be encouraged to run for political positions. You cannot have a Europe for citizens without the citizens being part of the process.

This wasn’t meant to be a detailed and thorough analysis of how to shape an ideal functioning political system for Europe; the idea was to check what main ideas would young people gathered informally over a cup of coffee have about it, coming from various levels of related knowledge and experience. In that regard, this essay is only the beginning of a long-term process, with increasing numbers of events in different cities, resulting in more ideas, suggestions and concrete thoughts, that the Politics Interest Group of AEGEE-Europe likes to call “Europe Cafe” and intends to keep it going for as long as young people have a voice.

What’s next? It’s up to YOUth!